On Dawkins … again

 

Been toying with these ideas for years. It occurs to me yesterday that there is this potential problem in Evolutionary theory. Evolution is usually considered one dimensional. It is about the gene frequency in successive generations. But actually it can be considered as binary i.e. survival or not. The common garden worm is a form that has survived as is the human species. In terms of evolutionary success there is nothing between them. They each occupy their niche stably. People might argue that humans were superior because we command control of so much of nature. The problem for us is becoming ourselves – can we command ourselves? I personally fear not – there is a contradiction in commanding oneself (SRH). So the human race may indeed be out lived by the worms. This makes the worms more successful than humans. Yet we know in another sense that humans are “superior” to worms. Humans for example can codify and discuss this issue… can even gain liberation from material entanglement. It is blatant then that against the yard stick of evolutionary success most of what humans are about does not get measured. Even those individuals/species that go extinct have qualities and values that evolution does not respect.

The argument can be put this more interesting way. Dawkins has an idea that gene frequency explains everything – call it Selfish Gene. He even extends this idea to the spread of ideas themselves. Suppose there was a gene which corresponded to an interest in the idea of Selfish-Gene and another gene that lead to bearers rejecting the idea. It may sound absurd to say a gene exists for such a specific trait – that is exactly one of the weaknesses of this thinking!

For the gene to spread there has to be selection in favour of the Selfish-Gene gene, in other words those who bear the gene that stops them from believing in the Selfish-Gene suffer some increased mortality as a result. How can this occur? It can’t. There is just as much chance of the people with the anti-self-gene gene winning and those with the selfish-gene gene. This is the problem noted before that there is no selective advantage to Evolution Theory. It is not the product of evolution itself! Which would run foul of the SRH anyway.

Both these points taken together point to things that are fundamental to human experience which transcend survival and existence – things which transcend evolution, chess and game theory. Death as is oft noted in religious circles is not the end, not even a concern of true mankind who see that survival and existence are just a diversion of reality and not its basis. The problem with Dawkins is that he is so blinded by his own dogma that he will never see “the light” it seems.

p.s. I need to look up the official game-theory/computability approach to chess. Is chess a formal system?